Of this we can be sure, following California's historic recall election this week: Gray Davis was not kicking himself Wednesday morning, wondering how things might have turned out with just one more visit from Bill Clinton.
After all, Tuesday's revolt was against the political establishment that is so epitomized by Clinton but that is comprised of members of both parties. We can only hope that these men and women, who practice the art of legal plunder so well and who gladly reduce our freedoms in exchange for increases in their own power, perks, and prestige, felt uneasy watching the news coming out of the Left Coast. This was as much of a revolt against them as it was against the heartless and calculating Davis. If this revolt catches on like so many other trends foisted on the nation from California, they could be next.
We can be sure that Davis' fellow governors took notice of the political landscape of California this year. How many breathed sighs of relief, knowing that their state constitutions do not include recall provisions similar to California's? If no other state constitution has such a provision, I'd guess that number is about 49.
Gubernatorial politics is crasser in California, where governors from both parties take turn milking their pet special interests to remain in power as long as possible before the support fizzles out, a time period of about two terms. So it went for Pat Brown, and then for Reagan, and then for Jerry Brown, and for Deukmejian and Wilson. It was bound to go that way for Davis, and it eventually did, only a little sooner than normal.
But the recall was more than a revolt against politics as usual, as members of the establishment keep repeating. This was a revolt against government, even in California where it had even grown too large for its median voter, who is arguably the most left-leaning state median voter west of Vermont. He understood, whoever he is, that your state is doomed when the number of producers who are escaping it is offset by a greater number of immigrants attracted to it by generous welfare benefits. He understood that California's brand of socialism was having the devastating effect of sacrificing capital formation for increased dependency wealth transfers, as did the California Democrats who gave Arnold Schwarzenegger his plurality.
But not everyone gets it. It seems that everyone but the politicians have noticed that in several important elections and referenda over the last several years, voters are opting for whatever side that appears to more likely to reduce government's waste and pilfering and busybodies from their lives. California didn't start this trend.
Consider that an up-or-down referendum in Massachusetts to repeal that state's income tax barely lost last November with over 45 percent of the vote. A reasonable person might conclude when events like that start happening in that People's Republic, that we may be living in the End Times.
And we very well may be, at least from a political perspective. The California Recall illustrates the truism that Clinton taught to the country so well in 1992: At the end of the day, it is the economy, and only the economy, that matters. Shoring up your base, throwing money at special interests, expressing fears of dangerous extremism and manufacturing last minute tales of crass womanizing – none of this matters to a jaded populace that has lost faith that the incumbent’s policies have any likelihood of turning an economy plagued by recession on a path to sustainable economic growth.
This applies just as much in California in 2003 between a tired governor and a Hollywood actor as it might in 2004 between a tired president and a former Vermont pol, and therein lies one of the important messages of the recall. If a superficial but rich political neophyte can claim the governorship of the most populous state, then certainly a likeable but unknown former governor of a state whose population is smaller than Dade County, Florida, can claim the presidency.
And such a result, though devastating to a political class that craves the stability that results from an obedient electorate, would be welcomed by those who value liberty, who are tired of the ever-increasing levels of wealth transfers that occur at all levels of government, and who understand that a little revolution, now and then, is a good thing.
October 9, 2003
